Download Free The Relationship Between School Improvement Grant Funding Allocations And Student Achievement In Californias Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Relationship Between School Improvement Grant Funding Allocations And Student Achievement In Californias Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools and write the review.

The federal government, through the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program of 2009, provided millions of dollars for states to bring about immediate and sustainable academic growth to schools that were designated as persistently lowest achieving. This study examined the budgets of the 128 California schools that participated in the first 2 years of the SIG program and analyzed the relationship between budgetary allocations and student achievement scores as measured by the Academic Performance Index (API). Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that SIG budgetary allocation percentages designated for certificated personnel, classified personnel, instructional materials, parent education, professional development, technology, extended time, consultant services, incentives, and allocation percentages designated for inside or outside the classroom were not predictive of API scores. A Pearson r correlation showed no relationship between allocation percentages designated for staff incentives and API scores. An independent samples t-test showed no statistically significant difference between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 API scores. Finally, an independent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in mean API scores favoring those schools that were eligible to participate in the SIG program but did not receive funding over those that received SIG funding.
Central to California's school accountability system are programs to engage low-performing schools in improvement efforts. One of these is the High Priority Schools Program (HPSGP), created by Assembly Bill 961 (Chapter 747, "Statutes of 2001") to provide funds to the lowest performing schools in the state. To be eligible for funding, schools must rank in the bottom decile of the state's Academic Performance Index (API). This study seeks to answer the question whether some schools participating in the state intervention program were more successful than others in meeting student achievement goals. Did schools that met their API growth targets each year and by all subgroups share common characteristics? There was not a great deal of difference among schools in how they spent HPSGP funds. Predictably, the greatest proportion of funding went to personnel costs. These included literacy and mathematics coaches; counselors, and administrative personnel. The next largest spending category was professional development followed closely by collaboration and planning. (Contains 1 table, 1 figure and 40 footnotes.).
Governor Jerry Brown's January 2011 budget proposal suggests shifting responsibility and funding for many state programs from the state to the local level. Under this "realignment" of government authority, local governments--usually counties--would be given responsibility for providing the services in realigned programs, and the state would provide local governments with a source of funding for the new responsibilities. In addition, local governments would be granted the authority to reshape realigned programs to better accommodate local conditions and priorities. Although k-12 education is not included in the governor's realignment proposal, similar themes apply to the current discussions and legislation pertaining to California's school finance system. This report examines California's school finance system through the lens of realignment, offering a framework for thinking about how k-12 realignment might work and the difficulties it might face. Certainly there are arguments on both sides of the equation. Proponents of greater local control argue that local school authorities have a better knowledge than state officials of the unique needs in their districts and that greater local control would reduce the administrative burden on schools and enable them to redirect their resources toward improving student outcomes. Those in favor of maintaining state control argue that central control allows the state to ensure its priorities are met across individual districts and that students in all districts, regardless of their size or location, are provided with similar educational opportunities. This study examines the trade-offs of each approach, concluding that thoughtful revisions in the state's categorical funding system would offer a good first step in moving toward a more productive, efficient, and transparent school finance system. (Contains 2 figures and 4 footnotes.) [Additional funding for this report was provided by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund.].
As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, one topic of debate is the program of school improvement grants (SIGs) authorized by section 1003(g) of Title I. SIGs are intended to help to turn around low-performing schools and are part of the larger ESEA Title I program to improve education for disadvantaged children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $3 billion in extra funding for section 1003(g) SIGs, which brought the total funding for fiscal year 2009 to more than $3.5 billion. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, provides information about school districts' experiences in implementing ARRA SIGs that can inform the ESEA reauthorization. This report describes school districts' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements. The information comes from a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in late winter and early spring of 2011. Some of the findings are based on responses from all districts in the survey sample, while others are based on responses from the subsets of districts that were eligible for or had received SIG funding. The survey covered a range of topics in addition to SIGs. Other topics in the survey are discussed in a June 2011 report on the fiscal condition of districts (CEP, 2011a) and a September 2011 report on district implementation of the common core state standards (CEP, 2011b). Findings include: (1) ARRA SIG funds were concentrated on a small number of districts, as intended; (2) Most ARRA SIG-funded districts received assistance from their state in implementing improvement models; (3) In the early months of 2011, half of the districts receiving ARRA SIG funds said it was too soon to tell about the results of implementing the transformation, turnaround, or restart models; (4) ARRA SIG-eligible and ineligible districts differed in their views about the effectiveness of key program requirements; (5) Half of the ARRA SIG-eligible districts believe that more than three years may be necessary to improve the lowest-achieving schools; and (6) Among all the nation's districts, there is no clear consensus about the effectiveness of current ARRA SIG requirements. Appended are: (1) Confidence Intervals and Statistical Significance; (2) Study Methods; and (3) Confidence Intervals for Survey Responses. (Contains 7 figures, 1 table and 10 exhibits.).
" The test score gap between blacks and whites—on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence--is large enough to have far-reaching social and economic consequences. In their introduction to this book, Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips argue that eliminating the disparity would dramatically reduce economic and educational inequality between blacks and whites. Indeed, they think that closing the gap would do more to promote racial equality than any other strategy now under serious discussion. The book offers a comprehensive look at the factors that contribute to the test score gap and discusses options for substantially reducing it. Although significant attempts have been made over the past three decades to shrink the test score gap, including increased funding for predominantly black schools, desegregation of southern schools, and programs to alleviate poverty, the median black American still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests. The book brings together recent evidence on some of the most controversial and puzzling aspects of the test score debate, including the role of test bias, heredity, and family background. It also looks at how and why the gap has changed over the past generation, reviews the educational, psychological, and cultural explanations for the gap, and analyzes its educational and economic consequences. The authors demonstrate that traditional explanations account for only a small part of the black-white test score gap. They argue that this is partly because traditional explanations have put too much emphasis on racial disparities in economic resources, both in homes and in schools, and on demographic factors like family structure. They say that successful theories will put more emphasis on psychological and cultural factors, such as the way black and white parents teach their children to deal with things they do not know or understand, and the way black and white children respond to the same classroom experiences. Finally, they call for large-scale experiments to determine the effects of schools' racial mix, class size, ability grouping, and other policies. In addition to the editors, the contributors include Claude Steele, Ronald Ferguson, William G. Bowen, Philip Cook, and William Julius Wilson. "